TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1999 (4) TMI 222
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rted by sea in February, 1985 colour heads for photographic enlarger. M/s. A.K. Corporation Ltd., appellant in Appeal C/74/86, imported in the same month the same goods. The goods in question were manufactured and supplied by M/s. Durst Phototechnik, Italy. Notice in writing was issued to the EIH and oral notices to the other two importers proposing confiscation of the goods on the ground that the imported goods constituted photographic enlarger import of which additional licences produced were not valid. When EIH appeared before the Additional Collector for hearing, they were informed that they were also proposing to enhance the value of the goods from the declared value on the basis of their value contained in the price list issues by the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ered as complete photographic enlarger which are not covered by the licences. The goods imported consisted of colour head and Bellows assembly, Baseboard with column and transformer were missing in the case of EIH. In the case of goods imported by the other two importers in addition to the baseboard, transformer lens and filter assembly were also not present. The Additional Collector has found that functionally, the colour head has the essential characteristic of enlarger. It can be used as an enlarger without the baseboard and column by mounting on the wall. He agrees that the column in the case of model AC 650 has values indicated on it for assistant in focus but disregards this fact. 3. The purpose for which the transformer is re....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....plete .enlarger was not given to the parts of enlarger other than model AC 650 in the case of models A 707, AC 670 and the conversion kit which forms part of these consignments, the goods were treated as parts and allowed clearances under the licence. 4. Although this finding is not present in the Additional Collector's order, the departmental representative sought to contend that at the relevant time the import policy was aligned with the Customs Tariff and that therefore by virtue of rule 2(a) of the Interpretative Rules of the Customs Tariff, the goods would have been classified as complete enlarger under the tariff and hence would be treated as a complete enlarger for the purposes of the policy. In the absence of any reference i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ods as complete enlargers and not as parts. In the absence of that note not even in the Customs tariff parts could be classified as complete enlargers. In the absence of that note in the Schedule to the Import (Control) Order, the goods would merit classification in the manner in which they would otherwise be classifiable as parts. The additional licences produced therefore were valid for import of these goods and confiscation was not justified. 5. The next question for consideration is of valuation of the goods. Both the Additional Collector and the Deputy Collector had applied value for the goods to be found in the price list issued by the manufacturer to its legal agent. This price list was not produced before us and it was conte....